From your quote:Nor did you... a no context picture asserting no observers were allowed.[But you recognized where and what it was about, didn't you? So was a citation needed? It is an example of egregious behavior from public servants]
Were any observers allowed in? Were 134 observers allowed in?
What proof do you have that your assertion is true?
What level of proof would be acceptable to prove it false, if that is the case?
"Some began to bang hard on the inside windows; others began to film workers handling the ballots, a violation of state law. To protect the workers, TCF officials covered some of the windows with cardboard—a decision Thomas said he was not consulted on, but absolutely agreed with."
What, exactly, were the workers being 'protected' from, if not from being observed?And why would they need to be protected from that, do you think? What official on the scene is on the record as saying there were 'far more than 134 observers' on site, why doesn't Mr Alberta quote anyone?
I, for one, do not see the point in giving our enemies (yes, you read correctly, they are corrupting the electoral process, so they aren't our friends or somehow innocent bystanders) so much benefit of the doubt - especially while insisting on higher standards of proof and greater purity of essence from conservatives